Luc announced that a the second draft of the prov-dm is ready for internal review. Group members are invited to review the document with a view of deciding of its release next week. Comments/issues to be raised using the Tracker, in the usual way. Actions was set on Satya, Yolanda and Tim to agree to close issues they previously raised (or reopen them with further comments). The next round of changes (third working draft) will focus on collections, recipe link and complementarity, in addition to moving constraints to a separate section.

James C is aiming to produce a revised version of its semantics, based on the latest prov-dm, by Dec 19th. This will be a good document to review by those interested in semantics. Then we will decide how to continue efforts.

As we had covered the agenda, we started a discussion on Complementarity, ahead of the planned work for prov-dm WD3. We put forward a number of proposals to get a feel for what the WG thought about this relation. It seems that the current definition is not satisfactory, but proposals that were circulated seem conflicting. It was suggested that we need use cases to drive the design of this notion. A wiki page was created and WG members are invited to contribute to it.

2. prov-dm

Summary: Luc announced that a the second draft of the prov-dm is ready for internal review. Group members are invited to review the document with a view of deciding of its release next week. Comments/issues to be raised using the Tracker, in the usual way. Actions was set on Satya, Yolanda and Tim to agree to close issues they previously raised (or reopen them with further comments). The next round of changes (third working draft) will focus on collections, recipe link and complementarity, in addition to moving constraints to a separate section.

<luc>Summary: Luc announced that a the second draft of the prov-dm is ready for internal review. Group members are invited to review the document with a view of deciding of its release next week. Comments/issues to be raised using the Tracker, in the usual way. Actions was set on Satya, Yolanda and Tim to agree to close issues they previously raised (or reopen them with further comments). The next round of changes (third working draft) will focus on collections, recipe link and complementarity, in addition to moving constraints to a separate section.

16:08:06 <tlebo> luc: we produced revised document, would like feedback from members.

Luc Moreau: we produced revised document, would like feedback from members.←

16:08:32 <tlebo> luc: objective is to release as second working draft at next week's telecon.

Luc Moreau: objective is to release as second working draft at next week's telecon.←

16:08:53 <tlebo> luc: a number of issues - satya, yolanda, and tim need to close their issues.

Luc Moreau: a number of issues - satya, yolanda, and tim need to close their issues.←

16:08:56 <adamretter> Hi I just joined the Working Group, but I am afraid that I will not be able to attend this weeks telecon, as its too short notice and I am travelling in Germany

Adam Retter: Hi I just joined the Working Group, but I am afraid that I will not be able to attend this weeks telecon, as its too short notice and I am travelling in Germany←

6. prov-sem

Summary: James C is aiming to produce a revised version of its semantics, based on the latest prov-dm, by Dec 19th. This will be a good document to review by those interested in semantics. Then we will decide how to continue efforts.

<luc>Summary: James C is aiming to produce a revised version of its semantics, based on the latest prov-dm, by Dec 19th. This will be a good document to review by those interested in semantics. Then we will decide how to continue efforts.

7. complementarity

Summary: As we had covered the agenda, we started a discussion on Complementarity, ahead of the planned work for prov-dm WD3. We put forward a number of proposals to get a feel for what the WG thought about this relation. It seems that the current definition is not satisfactory, but proposals that were circulated seem conflicting. It was suggested that we need use cases to drive the design of this notion. A wiki page was created and WG members are invited to contribute to it.

<luc>Summary: As we had covered the agenda, we started a discussion on Complementarity, ahead of the planned work for prov-dm WD3. We put forward a number of proposals to get a feel for what the WG thought about this relation. It seems that the current definition is not satisfactory, but proposals that were circulated seem conflicting. It was suggested that we need use cases to drive the design of this notion. A wiki page was created and WG members are invited to contribute to it.

16:47:43 <Luc> Proposal 1. wasComplementOf in WD is fine. No change required. Proposal 2. name of wasComplementOf to be changed, definition is fine. Proposal 3. wasComplementOf is not required. It should be dropped from prov-dm like all constraints associated with attributes. Proposal 4. WasComplementOf in current working draft is asymmetric. It should be replaced by a symmetric relation. Name to be determined. Proposal 5. WasComplementOf in current w

Luc Moreau: Proposal 1. wasComplementOf in WD is fine. No change required. Proposal 2. name of wasComplementOf to be changed, definition is fine. Proposal 3. wasComplementOf is not required. It should be dropped from prov-dm like all constraints associated with attributes. Proposal 4. WasComplementOf in current working draft is asymmetric. It should be replaced by a symmetric relation. Name to be determined. Proposal 5. WasComplementOf in current w←

16:47:43 <GK> @pgroth - I'm having problems with the CSS validator - stuff that works seems to be not valid, and the messages don't seem to correspond to the actual source.

Graham Klyne: @pgroth - I'm having problems with the CSS validator - stuff that works seems to be not valid, and the messages don't seem to correspond to the actual source.←

16:55:29 <satya> Following up on Proposal 3. wasComplementOf is not required. It should be dropped from prov-dm like all constraints associated with attributes. - how is viewOf important from perspective of provenance?

Satya Sahoo: Following up on Proposal 3. wasComplementOf is not required. It should be dropped from prov-dm like all constraints associated with attributes. - how is viewOf important from perspective of provenance?←